Press Releases

Entries in Lawsuit
(62)

Voters Sue Keene School District

The voters claim the modifications made to the petitioned warrant articles at the 2014 deliberative session were illegal.

Before the Deliberative Session, voter Conan Salada collected signatures on seven warrant articles to be placed on the official ballot before voters in the upcoming Keene School District election. During the Deliberative Session, all seven warrant articles were amended in a manner that eliminated the subject. These amendments were challenged as out of order, however the moderator overruled those motions, and the majority of voters in attendance agreed with the moderator. The Keene Sentinel described these changes as "Machiavellian legal maneuvering... to avoid letting voters decide the merits of the articles".

After the Deliberative Session, voter Darryl W. Perry, was directed to the 2011 Rockingham Superior Court decision in the case of Bailey v. Town of Exeter. In Bailey, the Court ruled, “the only way the phrase 'no warrant article shall be amended to eliminate the subject matter of the article' can logically be read is to conclude that any amendment that made the subject matter of the article a nullity was forbidden,” adding that “[m]erely because the majority of the voters were more clever in the way the amendment was worded to create the nullity does not mean their action was not a violation of the statute.”

Perry, Salada and two other voters (David Crawford and Eric LaRoche) have filed suit on Feb 19th against the School District due to the illegal actions at the Deliberative Session that have disenfranchised the voters of Keene, including petitioners. The filing can be read here. The Cheshire superior court will hold an initial emergency hearing of the case on 2/28 at 11am due to the short timeframe remaining prior to the school board election.

Feel free to get in touch with me if you have questions or would like to interview an activist, Ian Freeman Blogger, FreeKeene.com 603-513-2449

Consumer Plans, Billions of Taxpayer Dollars At Stake Due to IRS Mandate

Washington, DC, Jan. 17, 2014 – In the wake of a Wednesday court decision upholding the IRS Obamacare mandate, the plaintiffs in Halbig v. Sebelius filed for an expedited appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

“As this motion for a speedy appeal makes clear, there are compelling reasons for the appeals court act to quickly, because people are making their health insurance plans and billions of taxpayer dollars are now being spent each month in insurance subsidies for policies purchased through federal exchanges,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute General Counsel Sam Kazman. “This massive expenditure runs counter to what the district court itself admitted was ‘the plain meaning’ of the key provision in the Obamacare statute. And just as that court accelerated its handling of the case, the appeals court should similarly expedite this appeal.”

At issue in this case is the IRS regulation extending the law’s premium subsidies and employer mandate to “refusenik” states—the 36 states that decided not to set up their own insurance exchanges. In Wednesday’s ruling, Federal District Court Judge Paul Friedman rejected the plaintiffs’ argument but acknowledged it was supported by a key section in the statute and the plaintiffs’ position was “the more intuitive” position. Judge Friedman based much of his reasoning on he viewed as Congress’s broad goal of reducing health insurance costs—an approach the plaintiffs argue cannot override the language of the statute.

Michael A. Carvin of Jones Day is lead counsel in the case. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is assisting in the lawsuit’s coordination and funding.

New report shows way to end sugar subsidiesThe Institute for Policy Innovation notes the sugar trade distorting practices of the Brazilian, Mexican and Thai governments, including subsidizing exports and keeping domestic prices artificially low. These practices, along with those in more than one hundred countries, create market distortions that no one country can solve by itself.

CEI attorneys have been helping to coordinate a lawsuit challenging a major IRS regulation that is part of the Affordable Care Act. On Monday, a federal district court held a hearing to consider the government's motion to dismiss the case. On Tuesday, the judge announced his ruling: The suit will proceed on an expedited schedule. CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman said, "We've been hoping for a quick ruling since we filed the case, and now it looks like we will get it." Read more here.

Like anything else, carbon emissions have both costs and benefits. Marlo Lewis, a Senior Fellow in CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment, discusses a new study finding that the carbon debate has some nuance to it, after all.

Shaping the Debate

Football Team's Name Is No Business of Congress or the President (Link)

The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s 26-year record of success is made possible by our over 3,000 supporters. Please be sure to stop by www.cei.org/donate to make a donation today. Curious about all the possible ways to donate to CEI? Contact Al Canata at acanata@cei.org or 202-331-2280 to find out more.

City's new lawsuit tacitly admits that it IS about revenue, contradicting their previous claims. The "City of Keene" has now filed another lawsuit against the same Robin Hooders (and Pete Eyre, who has never Robin Hooded) in Cheshire "superior" court. This time, they allege the same things as before, that we have cause them damage by "harassing" and "intimidating" their parking enforcers as part of a conspiracy to meddle with their employment contracts. Now, they are seeking monetary damages plus their attorneys' fees (which are not going to be small, given the huge number of hours they have likely already billed on just the first case alone) and are demanding a jury trial! So if it weren't bad enough that they are wasting the court's time with one trial, now they are going to waste even more of the court's time AND the time of a dozen innocent jurors who could be out living their productive lives. If you'll recall back to the first suit, the city manager himself claimed publicly to the Union Leader:

"This is not about revenue. This is not about the city losing any money," - City Manager John A. MacLean

>From the new suit:

37. The City has suffered damages, all within the jurisdictional limits of the Court, for the following: a. Loss of an employee; b. A modified schedule for another employee because of the Defendants' behavior; c. Hiring costs to replace the lost employee; d. Monetary and administrative expenses with regard to counseling and other Human Resource issues; and e. The PEOs' inability to properly perform their employment duties.

Item "e" is another way of them saying "LOST REVENUE". Looks like the truth has come out. It IS really all about their lost revenue...and the continued attempt to crush the liberty activists in the area. The defendants must file appearances and answers in the case within 30 days of being served with the case. Here is the 2nd lawsuit against Robin Hooders in PDF form, as filed in Cheshire "superior" court on Monday 9/23.

Feel free to get in touch with me if you have questions or would like to interview an activist, Ian Freeman Blogger, FreeKeene.com